UPDATE: Johnny Depp is in Europe right now, but really wanted to make The Lone Ranger. According to one insider, “Let’s see how it all shakes out on Monday. There’s always a chance that it could go. You never know until you know.” The deeper story behind this production stoppage is about how movies are costing too much, studios are giving major pushback, and today’s backdrop of a crazy economy. Everyone involved is still intent on the project and still in discussions to see what can be done. But the studio’s concern is spending over $200M on a Western, even with Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp and a comedic slant. So clearly Disney took drastic action. Now the studio and filmmakers are trying to figure out the next step, either to shop it elsewhere or put it back together at a later date at a lower budget.

EXCLUSIVE: In a stunning development, Disney has shut down production on The Lone Ranger, the Gore Verbinski-directed period Western that was to star Johnny Depp as Tonto and Armie Hammer as the title character. Jerry Bruckheimer is the producer and the script is by Justin Haythe. I’m told this all just happened, and Disney pulled the plug because of the budget. I’ve heard the filmmakers were trying to reduce the film’s cost from $250 million (some even say $275 million) down to $232 million. But it wasn’t the $200 million that Disney wanted to spend. And between Depp, Bruckheimer, and Verbinski, the gross outlay on the film is substantial.

When the plug was pulled, the film was still casting up, with Ruth Wilson, the serial killer from the BBC’s Luther series, set for the female lead. And The Lone Ranger was scheduled to be released Dec. 21, 2012, smack up against The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which opens Dec. 14, and the Brad Pitt-starrer World War Z, which was just slated for Dec. 21. This becomes the second major Western-themed project to bite the dust, after Universal halted a mammoth adaptation of Stephen King’s The Dark Tower. And is it coincidence that The Lone Ranger halted right after another Western, Cowboys & Aliens, proved a pricey disappointment for DreamWorks and Universal?

Recent Comments

Here's an idea why not hire a Native American. One with CDIB card to prove he comes...

celebeverything.com

3 years

After the huge successes of Johnny Depp's Pirates movies and Alice in Wonderland and other big budget...

Halting tentpole movies is certainly is happening with more regularity in Hollywood lately. Universal recently halted production on a version of At The Mountains Of Madness that Guillermo del Toro was going to direct with Tom Cruise starring, and it also halted an adaptation of King’s The Dark Tower that Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, and Akiva Goldsman were ready to do, in a trilogy of movies and two limited run TV series. And just this week, DreamWorks halted Southpaw, a boxing drama that has Eminem set to star in his first role since 2002’s 8 Mile with Antoine Fuqua directing. It’s clear that studios are making their bets more shrewdly, particularly with the economic uncertainty that has rocked the stock prices of parent companies of film studios. Even if it means bruised feelings from stars, directors and producers accustomed to having it their way.

This had to be an incredibly tough call for Disney’s Rich Ross and Sean Bailey, but they have several huge live-action bets on the table already. Budgetbusters include John Carter, the Andrew Stanton-directed adaptation of John Carter of Mars with Friday Night Lights‘ Taylor Kitsch in the lead role, which has a budget that has ballooned to around $250 million; and The Great and Powerful Oz, the Sam Raimi-directed James Franco-starrer, is hovering around $200 milllion. But principals Bruckheimer, Verbinski, and Depp have minted money when they’ve worked together for Disney. Bruckheimer is the longtime cornerstone producer on the Disney lot. Depp has starred in the studio’s all-time biggest films including Alice in Wonderland and the four Bruckheimer-produced Pirates of the Caribbean films. Depp and Verbinski teamed for three Pirates installments, grossing billions of dollars for the studio. And Verbinski most recently directed Rango, the Paramount film that is a frontrunner for Best Animated Film Oscar and which grossed $243 million worldwide. Disney has four of the 10 all-time top worldwide grossing films in Hollywood history, and three of them starred Depp. That includes Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, which Verbinski directed and which grossed $1.066 billion. The most recent Pirates installment also cracked the $1 billion mark this summer, and Disney’s only other film on that all-time Top 10 list is Toy Story 3.

The Lone Ranger has a long history, but Disney counted on Depp to make it relevant with a comedic twist. The series began on the radio in 1933, then became a TV series that ran from 1949-1957, and both were wildly popular as the masked Lone Ranger and Tonto fought crime in the Old West, with the Lone Ranger calling out “Hi Yo, Silver! Away!” as his horse took off.

424 Comments

No, it was all the post production they would need to do to try to make it entertaining.

Kevin • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Well said.

Norm • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I haven’t had a smile all day but that made me laugh out loud. Thanks, buddy!

fredlave • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Maybe Bruckheimer, Disney, Depp, et. al. should tune into Turner Classic Movies and watch a few very entertaining movies that were made for peanuts, comparatively speaking.

JJV • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Turner Classic Movies? You mean the channel which replays ORIGINAL movies made at a time when they actually used to come up with NEW ideas for EVERY movie produced, instead of mindlessly rewriting the old classics so they can reap millions off of someone else’s original work?

stu • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Watched A Bronx Tale the other day. Simple, relatively inexpensive buta good flick.

Out of respect for the LONE RANGER, I’ll NOT go see any re-creation or clone movie, TV show. Remakes seldom live up to the ORIGINAL. I haven’t gone to see the remakes of Pyscho, Robin Hood, When the Earth Stood Still & would try to discourage others from going to see a remake of the LONE RANGER.

Carson Dylan Ethan Jamiroquai • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I hate when old people emphasize things they will NOT do, with all caps, and quite likely, defiantly crossed arms and a gaping mouth as they proof read down the chutes of chalky prescription frames after submission.

Warren Peese • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

That’s right, Carson, you hate. Bet you read your comment out loud to your imaginary friend who lives with you in your mother’s basement.

Momma • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Most of us “old people” were taught not to use the word HATE so lightly, it spreads like wild fire. We saved HATE for the devil. We were also taught to respect our elders and listen to them, as experience and history has taught them more than we know. Your comment is so much a good example of all that has gone wrong in our Country today.

Jamesiii • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Carson … that is really one of the funniest responses I’ve ever read (and I’m 62 and wear glasses :). Good on yer, mate!

chaffer • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Thanks for the insulting description of “old people”, you arrogant punk. Your mouth will gape someday too, you little ***hole.

BTW, the last part of your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

coastalocal • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Hey Carlson-

Sure remakes are OK, but I sure hope you remember your snide, hurtful comment when you’re 70…if you’re lucky enough to live that long. Show some respect please, the Karma counter is watching you.

s • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Just a note…I used to say the same…then I got older…you will see the same happen to you.

A 25 yr old knows more that a 15 yr old…a 40 yr old knows more than a 25 yr old and 70 yr old knows more than a 40 yr old.
I’m talking about life, not who’s the latest American Idol or hottest rap star.

Anonymous • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

It’s crazy how people get off on being offended. So Carson used the word ‘hate’ and made (barely) negative reference to ‘old people’. Yet his point is both accurate and valid. “Old people” (however you wish to define that term) generally look ill upon any remake of IP that was beloved during their own youth. It may be understandable, but it’s still annoying and intellectually lazy to not even consider that a remake could be made successfully. It is fair for Carson to point that out, especially as he’s done it a clever and generally playful manner.

Please stop looking to be offended. It makes you uninteresting.

Steve • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

NO more silliness. How about making a serious western? I don’t want to see another Sherlock Holmes style cute, sly, silly remake.

disillusioned • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

About Sherlock Holmes, I thought it was decent and somewhat close to the book in style. Of course hollywood has to add impossible physics, explosions and sillyness to keep the audiences’ attention these days.

therealjg • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I must agree very notion of a tongue-in-cheek redo of TLR just rubs my fur the wrong way. We stand on an economic precipice. America wants and needs confidence and righteousness in her movies, right now. Perhaps the cancellation decision was about more than mere cost.

Tom Leone • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Yeah and you can add TRUE GRIT to that list as well, Bridges and Damon are 2 of my favorite actors, but while the plot was essentially the same as the original with John Wayne, the humor was too offhand and took too much liberty with the original story line.

Perhaps remakes with the original plotline are not the wave of the future. Anyway the “CRAP” coming out of Hollywood these days and being passed off as creative is less likely to make me go out and see one again.

ed • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

totally agree. LOVE Bridges and Damon. But TRUE GRIT with them sucked a few big ones. HEY HOLLYWOOD, STOP TRYING TO RE-INVENT THE WAGON WHEEL!!!! AND ALL OTHERS. LAZY, FAT BASTARDS! WHERE ARE THE TRUE LEADERS AND MOGULS WHO USED TO DEMAND GREATNESS!????

Michael • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Actually, the Coens’ “True Grit” took a lot fewer liberties with the story than the Wayne film did. Read the book. It’s not a “remake” of the Wayne version, but a much, much more true adaptation of the source material.

David, in Virgina • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I saw The Day the Earth Stood Still when I was around 12. Scary as h4%%. Saw the remake (?) and found it boring.

Older film makers used the audience’s mind to create the link between the film and the audience. Today, its all about special effects. Which, after you have seen them time and again, gets boring.

I can remember in the early 80’s having a discussion with someone about 15 years my junior. They were saying how exciting the latest Bond movie was. I said it wasn’t. That each of the opening scene’s “great special effects” was merely a collection from previous Bond films. In the first films, since they were new – they were exciting. What he was describing – I felt like saying “been there, done that, was anything new?”

r0ckmypants • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Couldn’t your difference in feelings toward the original and remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still have more to do with your age than anything else? I’m in my 20s and know movies I found horrifying 15 years ago no longer scare me… because I’m not 12 anymore.

Sandy • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Remember the original The Thing? I still marvel at the snappy, funny and slick writing. Howard Hawkes did a fantastic job of making the dialogue seem as off the cuff as real life and I adore the way the characters talk in unison or speak over each other in a way I haven’t seen done since. Scary? Just when I was a kid. But in terms of writing and directing? Amazing. The remake was scary, but it was missing the main attraction (for me), that made the original so memorable.

T. Siegel • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Thank you, my thoughts exactly!

The Cahuenga Kid • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

@ Bill in Arizona.You are 100% correct.
There will always be only one true “Masked Rider of the Plains.”
God bless the memory of Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels (all due respect to the wonderful Johnny Depp!)
“Hi Yo Silver! Away…”

Pat • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Well, Bill, I’m 68 and really liked The Lone Ranger. Being that I also really like Johnny Depp and have been anticipating (even this far ahead) seeing the twists he would bring to the Lone Ranger saga—-to the point that I can well imagine a NEW classic, well done and undying. When this movie does get produced, I—the one who has gone to see only 3 Movies In Theaters in the past 20 years–will be in line to see it. :)) p.s. I do watch movies, but generally on DVD.

mary • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

would you feel the same way, if tonto was the boss and the ranger was working for tonto, helping clean up the out laws mess. and getting things turned right for the law and good for all the people. and let tonto slap on someone for a while: and not get hit and kicked around. and keep the movie the same only put tono as lead stand.
would you watch it?

Agreed • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Well said Brian

Zach • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Dude, I’m glad you made that comment because I’m sure it was on everyone’s mind. Other than mega salaries, how in the world do you have a budget that high for a Western?

very very curious • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The horses unionized.

Redmenace • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Horses?There’s not enough horses in the world.The flies that hover above the cow dropping in the background would have had to unionized.Then they would have had to give a special deal to the hay and the hay seeds to get a budget that ridiculous.

cas127 • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

“The flies that hover above the cow droppings in the background would have had to be unionized”.

Uh oh, looks like this story was posted on Drudge. Here come the mouth breathters (cue the sound of ‘dueling banjos’).

Indrid Cold • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

AWESOME! Nice work…

Hay • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The lead horses all demanded Will Smith super trailers for location work.

JustJP • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

LOL!

s • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Right on!!!!!!!!!!
They also got a 3 hour workday

Lytton Strachey • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

He fights a million Orcs.

Michael • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Was Jon Peters producing? Did he demand the Lone Ranger and Tonto fight a giant mechanical spider at the end?

Richard • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Silver bullets are very expensive right now.

Tom B. • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Outstanding!

TVrocks • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

because its being produced at Bruckheimer where every associate producer, coordinator and staff assistant eat lunch, dinner and get 2 Starbucks runs a day on the movie budget every day. His #1 assistant routinely ordered a venti latte with 3 shots of DECAF espresso, which was like $8. Just get a venti with regular espresso for $4, duh!

Rhonda • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Well I did think that was a lot of money…maybe they should have gone with more affordable actors that would have worked for a cheaper price… there’s probably one or two like that just hanging around NYC and LA.

me • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I would do it for way way less, and still make more than I have my entire life combined.

Ron Lewis • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

It sounds like they are trying to squeeze in costly visual effects….or is this project ballooning from compensating A-list actors???

I hope Disney does not fall into the mindset that visual effect films bring in the big dollars. Go back to formula and make a good film with a great story and no effects….try that!!!!

RickJM • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Yeah, cause Transformers hasn’t made any money. Everyone knows that people prefer story over visuals in their blockbusters. What at stupid comment.

Edit This! • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

RickJM… you need to go back to film school 101. Your arrogant snide remark couldn’t be further from the truth. Story is what matters, visual effects only enhance the experience.

Why did Transformers do so well in the theater? Well, it’s an animated franchise that had been around for a long time and guess what, it has story!!! There’s no other way to do that story then with CG.

Even George Lucas lives by the mantra that story comes first and that movies with great visual effects and no story are just effects.

Put the opinionated pipe down and think a bit before posting next time.

KProvance • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Lucas’ mantra? How do you explain Eps I-III which had weak story and too much CGI.

William • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Back off on the ‘stupid’ comment, Rick. Since we’ve all seen Transformers out walking around, I suppose they should have just used those instead of animating them — of course they had to animate that film. Cowboys and Indians, on the other hand, can still be hired and directed the old-fashioned way.

Most movies use very little in the way of visual effects and still manage to make a profit. Disney films will usually make good use of visual effects, but in a $200M+ budget, it does sound like they were planning overkill in the studio.

Carl • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

You must never watch old movies, or you’d know that a great movie doesn’t need expensive effects.

RickS • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Vapid visual effect heavy films make fortunes, but this is a oats and laughs film. I don’t see where 200 million dollars goes. The talent must be making some big dollars.

KProvance • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

How can you put ‘talent’ and ‘Depp’ in the same sentence and not scoff?

I agree. The Lone Ranger Himself, and Tonto as well, ARE the visual effects. Especially considering that Johnny Depp is the new Tonto. Excellent. Will love to see what he’ll do with the role when this movie does get produced. :))

Kiba • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I dont blame them, things just cost to much anymore. Also I noticed they didnt mention how much the actors saleries were either, talk about being over paid! Sheesh…

KEN LECLAIR • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Tonto? Isn’t that a bit stereotyping of Indians? $200 million to make a lone ranger movie? they should do it and go bankrupt..

Dil • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Cant’ give the movie a go and then… take it back. I just want to know at what point in this thread does the “Indian giver” joke get some play.

Didn’t Mr. Depp bad mouth America and it’s citizens a few years ago about being this big and dumb country? He compared it to a big dumb puppy, that when it bites, it bites really hard. I believed he moved overseas for a while. Mr. Depp, why do you come back to America, oh yeah……you like the money. No money from me……

Tex • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Depp lives in France because his children and family can have a bit of normalcy there. The locals do not let tourists know where he lives. They can go to the village market on market days. He is not asked for autographs by the villagers. The photographers don’t hassle him for photos of his children, of whom he is extremely protective, and they can go out for ice cream as a family without getting mobbed. They are ‘regular’ people, as far as Johnny Depp can be a ‘regular’ person. His girlfriend and her family are also from France. I applaud him putting his children and family life first!

djef • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Costs include Johnny Depp’s Make-up and the CGI for any horseback riding Depp would have to do!

HOGSLOP • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Poor Johnny!!!! less$$$ to haul back to his French farmhouse…drinking wine all day while trashing the USA.

Anonymous • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

That sure buys a lot of cocaine and hookers.

Norma Desmond • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Charlie Sheen is in this?!?

nope • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

none if this matters. they just didn’t want to put out a movie no one will see b/c that is the day the world ends in Apocalypse.

briguyx • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Disney probably got worried after the failure of “Cowboys And Aliens,” although between “Oz,” “John Carer” and “Lone Ranger,” I would expect “The Lone Ranger” would have a good chance at being the biggest of the three, thanks to the stars. There’s no reason they couldn’t make the movie for less though, losing a few of the huge “Pirates” type set pieces I’m sure they have and working more on story and character and sheer excitement, a la the “Zorro” movies.

Hunter • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The original series had a budget of $10 million/episode, so $232 million for the movie actually checks out.

null • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Actually, at an average of 23 minutes an episode, that’s around a $480,000 cost for every minute of content. For a roughly 120 minute long movie for $232 million, you’re looking at an average cost per minute of nearly $2 million. That’s 400% more per minute than was spent on the TV series. That is if your figures are even correct, or god forbid, adjusted for inflation. So no, it doesn’t check out.

Hunter • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I’m defeated by math on a daily basis.

Lytton Strachey • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The original TV series starring Clayton Moore did NOT cost 10 million an episode in 1949. Maybe the whole series over a decade but I doubt that too.
Westerns have always been cheap but profitable.
That’s why they were considered B-movie programming until the 70’s.
232 million is just insane.

anotherwgamember • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I believe the ten-million-an-episode comment was sarcastic satire.

Two hundred million for a movie on the Lone Ranger, however, is no joking matter. It’s insanity.

Jason Todd • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

^

Indeed. It might have been easy to justify if DVD sales were what they were five years ago, but with DVD cratering, I think the studios have finally found their breaking point.

auricle • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I thought is was satiristic sarcasm!

Woody • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Playing Tonto for “comedic effect” is even more insane than the price. The studios don’t have any respect for anything these days. The Lone Ranger was NOT a comedy, it was western drama. They want “relevant”? Skip the comedy and just have the good guys beat the bad guys — case closed, “Hi yo Silver, away.”

Tim G. • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Well said. I’d hate to see this classic character dragged thru the mud the way they did with the Green Hornet. Disney canceling this stupid film is the best news I’ve heard all day.

Joe Watson • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

When Hollywood has no more imagination than to do a remake of Conan the Barbarian, what can you expect? When did the last talented writer die off?

JJV • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

WHAAAAT? Are you SERIOUS? No way the original 1950’s series of the Lone Ranger cost anywhere NEAR 10 million per episode. IN fact the first series to even cost more then $100,000 was Star Trek and the 1st one to hit $1,000,000 per episode was STNG

Furious D • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

How in the world do you spend $232 million on a western?

I got a great idea for a new show for A&E: HOLLYWOOD INTERVENTION

Basically we try to teach directors, producers, and even some studios how to make a movie without spending the annual GDP of a mid size European nation.

Second that • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

And why not give a small percentage of budget savings to charities that do some good. Like Children’s Miracle Network, or the MPTF, or Stand Up 2 Cancer or any of the Hollywood supported charities. Yep we need an intervention.

Me • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Lol, furious, that’s the best damn comment/idea I’ve ever heard on this site. Awesome if they did that.

marc1921 • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I think that the 15 minutes of credits at the end of the movies naming everybody that got a salery is one of the reasons they cost so much,not to mention the crazy money paid to the “stars”!

MJ • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

How true! I am not in the film profession; however, I had always been amazed at the credits and how many people are involved in producing a film. Over the years I had the opportunity to observe a few location shootings for major films. Time and again, it was the same. A lot of people involved in the production worked hard in spurts, but there was an enormous amount of wasted time. I chalked it up to the “creative process”. Then I had the chance to see several scenes in a local indie film (that made it big) being produced on **gasp** a shoestring budget. The difference was striking. Same level of professionalism, but it was just, well, no nonsense and efficient. My conclusion is that “big Hollywood” is as much about employing (quite well) a cadre of folks whose skills would not otherwise be very useful in the real world.

sensible • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

that’s an obscene amount of money for the film and after cowboys and aliens tanked, i salute disney for being smart. how many kids could you send to college for that $$? hollywood has become so bloated with greed and retro-reboot-remake mania. how about they make 10 $23 million films instead?

huh? • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

How is Hollywood bloated with greed? Like any business, the studios’ goal is to make as large a profit as possible. I can’t believe I have to say this.

cookmeyer1970 • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I agree 200 million plus was too much, but the whole argument about kids and college doesn’t really hold water. *Some* of that budget may be going to a handful of people, like Depp and Verbinski, but the majority of it is still providing many, many jobs. Watch the entire credits on a movie and you’ll see just how many jobs these films provide. Now maybe some of those jobs will be axed to get the budget down, less fx or less set work, but it’s not like the money is all being thrown out a window. It’s a business.

Steven • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

It’s not against the law to be stupid. Hang in there.

AzRodeoQueen • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

How can Cowboys and Aliens even be compared to The Lone Ranger?

BRand • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

232mil????? Yea, I don’t blame Disney!

Carlos • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Wait, John Carter, a none sequel march film is budgeted at over 300 million? That’s going to have a tough time making it budget back. It’s not like this march is empty either. Hunger games and wrath of the titans come out in the two week after it. Good thing they shut this one down. 200 is way too much for a December super hero flick, especially the lone ranger, which should at most cost 100, if not less.

Voice of Reason • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

There are 11 books in the series dickweed (so I wouldn’t say it’s a “none” sequel).

Truth-o-Meter • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

So that’s 10 books that will never be filmed?

A. Hole • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

He’s saying that John Carter is not a sequel to any other movie – which it isn’t, weeddick.

anotherwgamember • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

If you can find anyone who even knows what John Carter of Mars is about that has ever known the touch of a woman, I’d be surprised. We’re talking about a title that is only remembered or recognized in the most obscure geek and sci-fi-fantasy circles (and, BTW, it’s basically a western set on Mars.) I’d rather see the money spent on something relevant to at least a section, not a single cell, of the general public.

Jason Todd • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

If you can find anyone who even knows what John Carter of Mars is about that has ever known the touch of a woman, I’d be surprised.

Aww, now that’s…that’s just mean! :)

JCOM has been revived in comics recently, so there’s new readers picking up on it.

It could turn out to be another Spirit, Phantom, Shadow or Rocketeer, true…but it could also be another Green Hornet.

However, I will agree that $220M+ is too much for that or any movie that doesn’t have the names Spielberg, Cameron or Will Smith attached.

Scott • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The failure of John Carter most likely has to do with the inexperienced director. Giving that much money to a first time live action director–then giving in to more instead of replacing him–is an issue for the stockholders.

Let’s face it–Stanton is no Brad Bird.

Tim G. • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I dunno…..no one knew what Star Wars (another western set in space) was about before it came out and it seemed to do fairly well.

Franky K • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Where did that money go? Trailer looked like John Carter of Utah.

FOXX • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

you idiot, is just a teaser, visual effects are not ready. Not yet

Scott • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Taylor Kitsch. The poor man’s Pauly Shore.

Skippy • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Okay, you made me laugh.

laughing • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Okay, I laughed out loud too. Pfft. “John Carter of Utah.”

D.Z. • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

And no one cares about a Twilight take on Oz, either. Di$ney’s dumb.

Carlos • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Wait, John Carter, a none sequel march film is budgeted at over 300 million? That’s going to have a tough time making it budget back. It’s not like this march is empty either. Hunger games and wrath of the titans come out in the two week after it. Good thing they shut this one down. 200 is way too much for a December super hero flick, especially the lone ranger, which should at most cost 100, if not less

ohwell... • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Well, I can’t say I saw that one coming, on the other hand let’s be honest, this movie doesn’t really scream “Disney movie”, and for that much money, the Mouse House needs it to scream Disney toys and products.

Escalating Budgets • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Maybe it’s time Hollywood started focusing on budgets that are realistic. Factoring in P&A and the rest, maybe making smaller cost features would be better.

And while I realize that shooting isn’t cheap anywhere anymore, maybe because the term “STUDIO FILM” = “Exorbitant rates” (from a vendor’s perspective) maybe it’s time the studios started thinking a bit smaller?

College Student • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I’ve been saying this for awhile but studios aren’t being very smart by putting all of their eggs in one basket.

A $200 million film is far less likely to turn a profit than 10 $20 million films are. If you make 10 $20 million films and even just two turn out to be as profitable as The King’s Speech, Black Swan, The Fighter, etc. then you’ve already turned a profit on a 20% success rate. Plus lower budgets means taking more chances on unique scripts, up-and-coming directors and actors, etc.

Looks like ‘The Help’ is another title that will be added to the list of very profitable mid-budget films.

Tawdry Hepburn • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Actually, if you made 10 projects at 20 million a pop, your total cost would be at last 400-500 million once you factor in marketing. So really, what you’re discussing is more like 7 films at 20 mill a pop and 15 million for marketing.

And actually, if you’re flooding the market with 10 low-budget non-sequel movies in one year, you probably need to spend more to get audiences aware of the product. Do you have any idea how much money it took to launch Black Swan? The King’s Speech? Two to three times the cost of the picture by the time all was said and done.

So really, if you want to be able to break into the mainstream consciousness, you’re talking about 2 to 3 movies at a 20 million dollar budget with 50 million in marketing each.

But now you’re betting 70 million on a movie…if you’re the head of development at a studio, do you really think you’d look that good if your slate was made up of King’s Speech, Black Swan, The Fighter and The Help. I’m not talking Monday morning quarterback here. I’m talking about announcing your upcoming slate to shareholders and board members.

Every single one of those movies is execution dependent. Sometimes you’ll end up with Precious, usually you’ll end up with Shadowboxer. So, you’re making risky projects, that won’t necessarily actually be GOOD and you have no ancillary markets, no sequels, far fewer ways to amortize your cost, to say nothing of the fact that talky movies don’t travel well overseas. And as we all know, that’s where the real money is these days.

Look, I’d rather live in a world where ambitious but terrible movies like Shadowboxer were the norm over Green Lantern and Lone Ranger, but what you’re describing is actually far riskier. It would cost people jobs, starting with the studio head.

cas127 • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Tawdry,

You are a smart, sexy beast.

seanocali • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Yeah but 90% of the marketing costs for those films obviously came after having astronomical per-screen averages during the limited release periods, and had been nominated for a bunch of things and getting all kinds of media buzz and attention. It’s not the same thing when you’re spending a bunch of money marketing something you already know is a giant hit.

Love Sick Man of Asia Argento • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Wonderful insight on the financial realities of the industry. Choosing between Transformers 3 and The King’s Speech is like choosing between going to the three-ring circus or going to Shakespeare in the park. The public pays for spectacle and they don’t shoot people out of cannons at the climax of Tristan and Isolde.

seanocali • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The profit margin for The King’s Speech is 3,100%. The profit margin for Transformers 3 was 500%. The King’s Speech was six times more profitable.

Stephen Cook • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Studios have done well betting big. Deathly Hallows took in over a billion world wide and that’s before even calculating the toys, posters & DVDs. & of course it will cause another surge in the book sales.

The mega movie has been good to the film industry. That’s why they look for movies that will generate tie ins to toys & other things. Disney pioneered it in the first half of the 20th century, but Star Wars & Toy Story took it into another dimension.

Studios bet on mega movies because they will probably produce close to 90% of the studio profits. How many successful smaller movies would they have to make to equal one Harry Potter or Toy Story 3?

unkadunk0801 • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Im not really suprised,because from what Ive read,they were changing the facts around to make Tonto the main character and The Lone Ranger a supporting character .And while Johnny Depps a good actor I cant really picture him as Tonto ,because its not his type of roll .Thats my opinion if Im wrong Im sorry but thats how I feel

lol • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

seems like the perfect depp roll to me.

very very curious • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Hey guys, this Depp Roll sounds great…what sushi bar did you find it in…oh and uh…yeah, in entertainment its called a ROLE…it’s ok guys…not everyone makes it through high school…

Temis • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Regardless of how the movie is written, Depp is bound to steal it (not to say Armie isn’t a good comic actor, or that one day he might not follow in Depp’s footsteps), which is just as it should be, since the sole reason this movie is going to get made is because Depp wants to do it, because he’ll be the reason that people overseas go to see it, where nobody has ever heard of The Lone Ranger the way they never heard of some Disneyland ride about pirates once upon a time.

Other factors, such as whether Cowboys & Aliens has killed Westerns, or whether the movie is any good, are beside the point. The PoTC movies are terrible, and just look at the BO there.

Terry • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

That is pretty stupid of Rich Ross. Johnny Depp is bringing Disney billions in revenue not James Franco. They can easily reduce the OZ movie budget or shutdown that. James Franco is not going to give Disney a billion dollar movie at the box office. He hasn’t failed at helping Disney make back its money and more.

porkinz • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Dumbass, first of all, OZ has already been shooting for a month. They’re not going to pull the plug on it now. Second, think about the built-in audiences for OZ vs. LONE RANGER — EVERYONE loves the Wizard of Oz universe. Don’t believe me? WICKED is just about the biggest hit in the history of theater and kids still watch the 1938 movie. Still with me? Third, OZ is much easier for Disney to merchandise than a property like LONE RANGER. Fourth, if you hadn’t noticed recently, big-ticket movies have been bringing in audiences a lot more than star-driven vehicles; to wit, think about the grand success of AVATAR (no stars; Sigourney had but a supporting role) vs. THE TOURIST. We no longer live in an era when stars are the most important piece of the movie, not if it’s a big effects-driven tentpole with a A-ilst director in charge. Sorry pal, YOU are the stupid one, not Rich Ross. And no, I have nothing to do with Disney.

mjrules • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I have to say 100% agree.

I’m for OZ for the WIN, even though I was looking forward to seeing Depp in this western (little gutted).

I love ANYTHING Depp does but I’m really looking forward to OZ and it has a more solid LONG history.

Just really pray the movie is done right (Director) and Franco truly steals the show (love him in everything but hope he’s not singing hahaha) but all the cast members look pretty solid, so how can it fail?

Oz can easily make a billion or more, COME ON EVERYONE THINK VERY VERY HARD it’s OZ (again, if done excellently, it will not fail and stop with the hating of Franco). 90% of the world population, I’m sure knows the background story to Oz and the first trailer will be telling.

Not sure why, people are giving Franco a hard time, it’s not like he can’t act, his an excellent actor.

Didn’t anyone learn a SERIOUS lesson with Apes? Majority of critics/fans thought Apes would fail and was ready to blame Franco BUT yet, it made no.1 (on a limited production budget)and 83% critics reviews and 90% fans reviews on Rotten Tomatoes (I think, it has legs to make serious money especially overseas).

Whether, people say it’s all due to Andy Serkis or not, it’s still a massive HIT and not a surprise to me, even this early days and with REAL justice, I hope it make a Billion.

I think Franco brought something to the table also, regarding the Apes (heck, he stole the show, when he appeared in The Green Hornet as Danny Clear and that was just 5 minutes – best thing in the WHOLE movie) and he will do so with OZ too.

I’ve noticed recently that everytime a movie does well starring Franco – he doesn’t get acknowledged but goes to everyone else in the movie, this is since his Oscar hosting.

Seriously, again, he’s an excellent actor, why people still hating on him, when his movie history speaks for itself. I think people need to get off his back and appreciate that there is a great talent there.

Depp will have more movies to come out, which will do extremely well; WHY can’t there be room for Depp and Franco (love them BOTH equally). It’s not Franco’s fault this has been temporary cancelled.

deb • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The desperate marketing flop sweat on display here is astounding. Is Disney really this frightened?

Justin P. • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Well, I don’t love the Wizard of Oz universe. And, for that matter, I don’t have any interest in seeing Depp as Tonto.

Glenda • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Oz is going to be soft and has virtually no chance of making money for Disney. The cast is boring and lacks a true global star. The script is just OK. You can hardly point to the success of Wicked as a harbinger for the movie unless there are suddenly sweeping musical numbers.

paul • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The 1938 Wizard of Oz was a flop when it was originally released. It didn’t make money until it started airing on television.

djp • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I think the failure of Cowboys and Aliens impacted this decision.

Truth-o-Meter • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Where’d you get that idea, Mr. Professional Reader?

orhowabout • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

or how about the fact that depp has not signed onto the next pirates yet….

Jen • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

It’s because Rich Ross has no idea what he is doing, has effectively ruined the studio and should be fired. Bring back Dick Cook.

lsb • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

and Dick Cook did so well in the later years, remember the Bruckheimer talking rodents? Disney’s problem is they need to think small not big. Let Disney owned Pixar and Marvel think big along with Dreamworks, stick with Pirates and lower budget films.

Indie • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The Depp Jolie film made all kinds of money almost $300mil. Only the US press ranted failure and were proved 100% wrong. Jolie is gold worldwide as is Depp. Depp would have been good in this but the budget in insane. What are horses going for these days?

ari • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The TOURIST didn’t make ‘all kinds of money’ for the studio and broke even at best at the boxoffice. It certainly didn’t look like its 100 million dollar budget. The notion of casting Depp as the most famous American Indian character of all time seemed strange at the time and casting Armie Hammer as the Lone Ranger brings back memories of Klinton Spilsbury. Has anyone read the script to see where all the money would have gone? Using Depp as the CISCO KID would make more sense and be closer to the character of Jack Sparrow. The Coen Brothers western cost around thirty million and was pretty good. It’s amazing that no one got the joke about the cost of the original LONE RANGER series.

Fred C. Dobbs • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Saw the Tourist at a friend’s cable, I refuse to put $ in these 2 anti-americans pocket.
A. Jolie is a pair of big lips and a pair of big boobs on a stick body, I don see the attraction. Not that much of an ecktor.
2. Dipp is a shrimpy little scrawny guy who can act a little but he’s not my idea of a leading man; but then, neither was Bogie and look at his flicks.

Lauren • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

So sick and tired of all these “boys” getting their way and lining their own pockets with absolutely no regard for the creative process or the long lost art of filmmaking. Good for Disney. Like we need another “blockbuster” oy enough already. I hope some independent comes along and kicks all their asses. All they care about is money and ego. What happened to original stories, great actors and great films. Good riddance now get some originality and put $ behind that.

really? • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

is that really how you felt about the first PIRATES? not the sequels, the first one. it was spectacular. this would have been on or above that level.

Lars • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The art of filmmaking isn’t lost. It’s easily found in Europe.

scott • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Maybe it should have read “the art of GOOD film making.”.

markLouis • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Johnny Depp has proven himself to be a fan favorite and a money maker.

Nobody is going to see the John Carter of Mars movie. Nobody is going to see Franco in an Oz movie.

Why not cancel both John Carter and Oz, and give the money to the Depp movie? People will go see the Depp movie if he’s not saddled with Jolie.

Reality Check • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

You’re joking. The only time Depp makes money is when he’s either playing Captain Jack or when he’s teamed with Burton. The Tourist proved that.

Larry Brooks • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

You forgot about Burton & Depp’s ED WOOD.

Nope, Burton & Depp do NOT automatically equal big boffo boxoffice.

ZAN • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

You’ve heard of worldwide gross right? The Tourist did make $300m back on a $100m budget. But I think this movie is not getting made because they don’t think a Johnny Depp western would make over $500m worldwide to make back its budget. It would be a great financial decision at $125m or $150m, as it would’ve been very good and popular. Hollywood should stop thinking that they need a studio film to be over $200m to make unless it is a sequel.

m • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Public Enemies was very good. And that wasn’t with Burton.

Tex • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The Man Who Cried is one of my favorites and Depp had very little to say. Not many of the characters did. His face and eyes said it all. A great movie, but it is not well known. He never has gone for the ‘big movie’ except for Pirates. He goes for the scripts he likes and interesting characters. He takes chances that the movie might not make it big, but that he can do a character he wants to do. An interesting character. Not necessarily a traditional, Hollywood type leading man character. He doesn’t mind the chance of ‘failing’. Not many actors today operate that way. They want to play it ‘safe’.

The Lone Stranger • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Probably didn’t just give the money for the Depp movie because both John Carter Of Mars and that new Oz movie are further along in various stages of production than The Lone Ranger was. That could very well be a key component factored in with the huge budget.

nobby • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I would’ve seen the film just to see Johnny Depp as Tonto.

Fred C. Dobbs • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Thousand of other wouldn’t!

Temis • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Millions would see it who have no idea who Tonto is (The Lone Ranger is hardly a global brand – yet) or even what a Native American is supposed to look like. It’s all about international BO now.

notacow • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

You mean the original series with Clayton Moore?!? Are you on crack? The budget was probably closer to $10k (not M) per episode.

Georgia • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

And half of that money would no doubt be going into Johnny Depp’s salary.

Dave R • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Limited appeal. A 1940’s radio show that was a 50’s TV series about the American west, how’s that gonna make ANY money over seas much less here in the states. Maybe 50-75 million budget but no more.

nobby • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I’m sure there was similar criticism about Pirates Of The Carribean. Who’s going to watch a movie based on a roller coaster ride in Disneyland?

daddyb • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

roller coaster ride???!!! LOL. Disneyland? Not just there, nobby. It had worldwide appeal prior to the movies.

I’m blaming micro-manager Rich Ross for counting too many pennies and studio shivering over the bad income of C&A. I’m sure they were thinking that if Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig can’t make a western work, then how could Johnny Depp? (after all, Depp couldn’t make an spy thriller work).

Once again forgetting that it’s about STORY TELLING not just about big FX. Just like Disney decided to not do too realistic CG animation because “it creaps people out” rather than blame “Mars Needs Moms” lack of story telling.

we wuz robbed • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

gore tells amazing stories. you may remember a little film that ate mars needs moms alive, called rango. this is a big, big loss for the good guys.

Nate • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

You forget that the children’s cartoon rango did not turn a profit. It’s deep in the red, ugly, and didn’t move toys.

The Lone Stranger • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I have to agree with you and think studios need to pay more attention to telling quality stories and not over-inflated budgets and spectacle. Warner Bros. needed to take HEAVY note of this with Green Lantern. I’m a huge comic book and G.L. fan, but that budget and spectacle was overblown for no real reason than just to show off they could do so. But it wasn’t really just the overblown cgi and budget that did it in for me, so much that it was more that G.L. FORGOT QUALITY STORYTELLING.

Not only did I think they could’ve done a better version with even a much smaller budget for G.L. but it was really the story quality that did that movie in. It was so lackluster and devoid of a good plot, structure, and characterization.

I can see why Disney would ax The Lone Ranger on a budgetary level with how steep that initial budget was, as well as the factoring in on where it was at in it’s production. I’m a huge Lone Ranger fan as I am comic books and Green Lantern, but I’d rather see a more modestly budgeted version of the masked rider of the plains if it had a quality storyline. Not to say that Gore Verbinski couldn’t do a quality story with this movie’s huge budget, but I have the feeling that he could do a great Lone Ranger on a smaller budget too. And that lays in the realm of doing a quality story.

Temis • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The Pirates of the Caribbean ride was internationally famous before the movies? Somehow I doubt that. It wasn’t even famous to Americans. The predominant reaction before the movies among Americans of my acquaintance (including me) was to scratch their heads and wonder where they’ve heard that name before, because the last time they went to Disneyland, they were twelve. The Pirates ride isn’t even the most memorable one there. We ain’t talking Jungle Cruise.

Anything can become internationally famous nowadays. It doesn’t need to be famous to begin with. Just combine a healthy marketing budget with a lot of action and SFX, and put the right name on the marquee.

Thomas • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Kudos to the mouse. Should have never been greenlit at that price. Hard to imagine from script to theater spending anywhere near $200M including advertising. It’s a WESTERN.

A • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

While I agree it is a hefty price for a film…people love johnny Depp in the US and Internationally. Someone got scared big time by Cowboys and Aliens. I hope the project happens elsewhere and is another mega-hit for Johnny and company.

Vidiot • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

I bet this is more anti-Western, anti-big-budget backlash against “Cowboys & Aliens.”

It’s sad, because I think a reasonably-budgeted Western could still do well. I’m baffled as to why this film would cost $232M. What’s Dep’s quote these days? $40M? Everybody should take scale and just take a big piece of the back end… but I suspect Disney doesn’t like that precedent.

Matt C • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Yeah. There’s absolutely no reason, even with Bruckheimer, Depp and Verbinski’s fees, why this shouldn’t be around $100M or less. Does Bruckheimer plan on using ILM for extensive CGI or what? I pray Disney is taking a look at the massive cash they’re just throwing around when these movies aren’t a sure thing. (Especially this title and “John Carter.”)

Even “Rango” cost an estimated $150M, with Depp and Verbinski involved. Why

Tawdry Hepburn • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Rango had to bear the upstart cost for a new animation studio. Future ILM animated films will cost far less and will be used to fill the hole left by Dreamworks Animation and, to a lesser extent, Marvel. It was a smart deal.

Scott • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Hardly. ILM has yet to prove they can write or even tell a story–a fact that has not gone unnoticed by distributors. Until then, thery’re just another service company.

rango has yet to turn a profit–and it was one of the ugliest kid’s cartoons ever made.

GloriousBasterd • on Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

It’s really sad to see Rich Ross and Sean fail so colossally and in fact it’s not really their fault. It’s like giving the keys to a new Ferrari to 14 year old kids. What did you expect would happen?! So now it’s more layoffs at Disney, and less output. Not to mention a huge talent relations mess… Good times. Poor Rich.